Older discussions

This text was added to the end of the article. There is some material that could be integrated into the article. Cheers, -Willmcw 18:00, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

The patient is NOT encouraged to cry, scream or beat the whatever out of objects. This is typical of the misunderstandings held by people who are only vaguely aware of what the therapy entails. As Janov himself states on his web site, "Primal Therapy is not Primal “Scream” Therapy. Primal Therapy is not just making people scream; it was never “screaming” therapy".

The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events. The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.

Janov cites many surveys and studies of the therapy in his various books. Whether they pass the definition of 'peer-reviewed outcome studies' or not I cannot say, but the statistics cited are remarkable.

The therapy has evolved to be quite different from its early days, when an aggressive approach on the part of therapists who were still formulating the theory behind it, caused a lot of damage to vulnerable patients.

I admit to bias in making this report: I have undergone a Primal-type therapy, which I credit with saving my life. Later this year I intend undertaking further therapy at Janov's center, with a view to possible induction into their therapist training program.

OK, I am another patient at Dr. Janov's Center. I can't figure out how to do this, however here are my comments:

About:

The patient is NOT encouraged to cry, scream or beat the whatever out of objects. This is typical of the misunderstandings held by people who are only vaguely aware of what the therapy entails. As Janov himself states on his web site, "Primal Therapy is not Primal “Scream” Therapy. Primal Therapy is not just making people scream; it was never “screaming” therapy".

Yes, Primal therapy is not _just_ about screaming, beating, etc... BUT yes also these are encouraged and it is what make this therapy specific and different from conventional forms of psychotherapy. The rooms are heavily padded. There is a bat for the patient's use next to the bed. In difference from conventional therapy, Primal therapy include these and make them an important part of the process.

About:

The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events. The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.

Yes, but a patient can do this in any conventionnal psychotherapy. The "Primal Institute" states stuff like that, but they basically provide conventional individual and group therapy.

About:

Janov cites many surveys and studies of the therapy in his various books. Whether they pass the definition of 'peer-reviewed outcome studies' or not I cannot say, but the statistics cited are remarkable.

This was introduced by someone who also removed the link to the inventor's institute and replaced it by a link to the "primal page". There are "peer reviewed outcome studies". And yes, the statistics are remarkable.

About:

The therapy has evolved to be quite different from its early days, when an aggressive approach on the part of therapists who were still formulating the theory behind it, caused a lot of damage to vulnerable patients.

I don't think this happened under the direction of Dr Janov. These happened with imitators and co-optors whom were trying to imitate this therapy without proper training. They were focusing uniquely on the screaming, trashing, beating part. Unfortunately they gave a bad reputation to Primal Therapy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.193.21.6 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 3 July 2005

Hi, My name is Pat, and I am a long-term primaller from Cape Town, South Africa. I would like to add my two-cents worth:

About:

The patient is encouraged to discover just exactly what they are feeling at the time of the therapy session, and if appropriate, explore the history of that feeling as possibly connected to past, painful events.

Yes, that is correct.

The aim is to elicit deep feeling states connected to past trauma, in a bid to better understand the neurotic behaviours caused by such trauma, and hopefully, eliminate or lessen those neuroses.

I agree with that in principle. I think I would say "... in a bid to relive, re-experience, and then, as a result come to understand the previous neurotic behaviours". Reliving is very important, as the primaller is really "back there" re-experiencing". It is only when we return to the present that we being to make "connections" and out of the connections, come "insights". That is when we come to understand what triggers us in the present, and how we can become aware of those triggers and then do two things (a) Consciously not repeat the destructive behaviours and (b) Discover that because the old pain has been integrated, we often find that we are no longer triggered by "old" situations, and that the issues simply don't come up anymore.

About:

Yes, but a patient can do this in any conventionnal psychotherapy. The 'Primal Institute' states stuff like that, but they basically provide conventional individual and group therapy.

It's true that a patient can deal with old traumas in conventional therapy. In most conventional therapies however, the person may "remember" the trauma (a first step in some primals too), but then they often end up only crying "about" the old pain, and not actually "reliving" it. It is the reliving, on all levels, physical and emotional, that brings resolution and changes in body, brain, feelings and the way one goes on to handle one's life. To the extent that any therapist gives sufficient containment to facilite the reliving of old traumas, in a non-invasive way, and at the pace that the patient's psyche guides, such a person is a good primal therapist!

Puzzling removal of "spam" links

I added http://primal-page.com as an external link. It was removed by GrahameKing with the claim that the link is spam. The site has a wealth of articles on Primal Therapy (some by print-published researchers), does not host advertising, and has no discernable commercial purpose. Please explain why this link is "spam."

reply to: Puzzling removal of "spam" links

I'm not sure about the purpose of the link. I hastily categorised it as spam when I should have categorized it as being not sufficiently relevant. It muddies the waters with articles about drug induced regression (not used by Dr Janov or any therapists he has trained) and articles about "self-primalling". To the best of my knowledge, Dr Janov has always been sympathetic to self-primallers but I think the proper way to make the connection you are desiring to make is to write articles on these subjects and put the link(s) there. Those articles can link to the article on Primal therapy and explain the relevance. Also, if you want to defend your editing, I suggest you log in before you edit so there is a name, not just an IP number and sign off when you post a discussion item like the one above. I mean all of this in a constructive way and am open to further discussion. GrahameKing 08:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Triune brain

Hello. Just an idea: I mean it could be now adequate to mention the triune brain model of Paul MacLean in the article out there too. JahnTALK TO ME ... 06:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jahn: The article triune brain and linked supporting amateurish web pages look like a hoax to me. Without some actual publications in the references it is hard to say. Maclean has been dead for more than a decade and the R-complex article linked to looks just as poor - no references at all - so it's impossible to tell without further research. I would not consider linking any article to either of those as they now stand. I may even propose them for deletion. But thanks for pointing them out. GrahameKing 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. I didn t read the triune brain article, I only looked whether there is an article about it here. But now, after reading Your comment and reading it, I think You are right. I meant that it could be relevant because Janov wrote somewhat about MacLean in Prisoners of Pain and The Biology of Love. I m sorry. My broken english is very bad. I hope You understand what I tried to say. JahnTALK TO ME ... 22:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Jahn, your english is easy to understand. I haven't got some of Janov's recent books and haven't read all of his books. As I research this article I am beginning to understand better why Janov's work was treated with disdain by the establishment - his books don't have complete bibliographies at the back. I'm looking through my copy of Prisoner's of Pain and have found just one reference, from the index, to "Experimenter Paul MacLean of the National Institute of Mental Health ... calling them 'the triune brain'". I'll put this link in the article: Paul D. MacLean. Thanks again for your persistence. GrahameKing 23:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Risk of cultism?

Grahame, you're doing a great job revamping this article. I realize you're not finished yet, but have you considered adding a section about a notorious episode in the history of primal therapy -- The Center for Feeling Therapy? It was an abusive therapy cult spawned by former Arthur Janov trainees which eventually disintegrated amid multi-million dollar lawsuits. Two books have been published about the collapse of the Center for Feeling Therapy: Therapy Gone Mad by Carol Lynn Mithers and Insane Therapy: Portrait of a Psychotherapy Cult.

Until I saw that you haven't read all Janov's books I was assuming that your interest in this article was because you actually attended one of the Janov institutes. If not, it would be interesting to know what fired your enthusiasm. My interest is as someone who has read his books and wanted to find out more. -- Simon (81.174.212.158 02:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

Hi Simon. At first I want to say that I don t understand and write and speak really good the english language. So it could be that I do understand a lot of things wrong. But I believe it s possible to conquer the language barrier ... not even the antagonists of the old doctor from California, Arthur Janov, disclaims that Primal Therapy works. Maybe Janov is wrong. But the problem/the thing what he describes in his books is real. I know that. Johnny Cash was singing about it in one of his songs: Pain is the only truth (or somewhat like that). And that is, to me, the only relevant fact. To feel the Pain, that s the thing what the old doctor always tried to tell in his books to the suffering people in this world: "For the suffering neurotic who may think that Primal Therapy is too overwhelming or too difficult to go through, I would only say that the Herculean task is to be what we're not. The easiest thing to be is yourself." (see >>> http://www.primalinstitute.com) Risk of cultism is only a problem for people who don t feel their Pain. Sure, I know that, it s only my POV ... JahnTALK TO ME ... 23:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jahn. I think you were right to draw attention to Paul MacLean's triune brain theory. His work is mentioned in several of Arthur Janov's books -- because the idea of 3 levels of consciousness is central to primal theory. Paul MacLean is also the person who coined the anatomical term "The Limbic System", at the beginning of the 1950s.

You wrote: "Pain is the only truth (or somewhat like that). And that is, to me, the only relevant fact." My interest in Janov's work started when a complete set of all his books arrived in a second-hand bookshop which I frequent during my lunch breaks. Since then, I've found plenty of other sources of information about the history of primal therapy (online, and in books). My feeling is that this Wikipedia article might benefit from a broader perspective than just an outline of Janov's theory. Maybe Grahame has that in mind too. While it's true that the http://primal-page.com site muddies the waters with all kinds of wacky material unrelated to primal psychotherapy, there's also a great deal of information about independent outcome research, the history of non-Janovian primal therapy centers and dissent among therapists who completed their training with Arthur Janov.

Then there is Konrad J. Stettbacher's version of primal therapy, which at one time was promoted by the former psychoanalyst and bestselling author, Alice Miller (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Miller). Apart from John Lennon, I would like to know if there are any other notable former patients who recounted their experiences at the Primal Institute (before Vivian divorced Art Janov) or the Primal Center which he set up afterwards. Roland Orzabal of Tears for Fears attended an independent, 'unapproved' primal center in London. -- Simon (81.174.216.228 04:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Yes, Alice Miller. I think she was/is on a similar trip like Janov. In a way primal therapy is the evolution of psychology and like the next consequential step of pychoanalysis. By the way: In the German Wikipedia some people quarrel about whether psychoanalysis is "pseudo science" or not ... JahnTALK TO ME ... 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the German Wikipedia needs a translation of the article about Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson who exposed Freud's suppression of the truth about childhood sexual abuse. -- Simon (81.174.210.132 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Primal-page.com link removed again

I had put this link back in because I saw a couple of articles that are relevant but they won't add anything beyond the other references. I confess I was biased - they were written by an old friend. The John Lennon article linked to from the primal-page has been added by someone else to the Sidenote, an appropriate spot for it. There are just too many irrelevant articles in primal-page.com for me to cull through and find something that is worth adding separately and so there are way too many for the average reader with less knowledge of Primal Therapy than I have. If anyone finds individual web pages that really relate to Primal Therapy - not Primal Psychotherapy, Primal Integration, Primal Scream Therapy, and especially not Drug induced regression, I would be interested in having a look and discussing suitability. (Please post the exact link here.) Otherwise, clearly they may belong in another article but not in this one.

Primal Therapy compared and contrasted with other therapies

This would be an interesting project for someone as a separate article perhaps. For now I am just trying to get the basics of Primal Therapy down. Arthur Janov's views on this can be read on his website under the title "Grand Delusions".

In addition to articles on the site, many interesting titbits about the Janov centers were reported on the http://primal-page.com Message Board, which closed down recently. The Message Board also used to have endless arguments between people who never attended a Janov center, but who nevertheless made all kinds of dogmatic assertions which they couldn't possibly back up with hard facts or personal experience. Wikipedia policy precludes information which cannot be backed up with a suitable citation.

I don't contribute to Wikipedia articles much these days. Experience has taught me that working on articles where there is any hint of controversy can be a colossal energy drain. NPOV is fine in theory, but in the real world controversial articles are like a magnet for people with a partisan agenda. As most pages can be edited without restriction, any passing stranger can come along and meddle with text which was carefully put together after many hours of diligent research.

Have you heard of Theresa Sheppard Alexander? She was Director of the New York branch of Arthur Janov's Primal Institute until it closed down at the time of his divorce (1983, I believe). She wrote a book, Facing the Wolf, which is the only one I know of that describes in detail the techniques used by a Janov-trained therapists during the three week intensive. -- Simon (81.174.210.132 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC))

Simon, you've posted some very interesting information while I've been trying to maintain my focus on briefly summarizing the theoretical concepts. I'm still not clear about where I would like to see the article go after that but some of your ideas have been getting me thinking. On the "Facing the Wolf" book - I would like to get a copy of that. The old techniques may be of some interest but on this point have a look at the first paragraph of chapter 17 of "The New Primal Scream" entitled "Primal Therapy Today".-- GrahameKing 11:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy of "The New Primal Scream". The techniques have changed over the years, but Arthur Janov doesn't give enough information in the books to draw any firm conclusions. His 1996 book introduced the idea of "brain mapping", although former patients who attended his center in recent years have said brain mapping isn't actually used on a regular basis. I don't believe it's possible to discern exactly how primal therapy is practiced today from the books alone.

Techniques apart, the 3 levels of consciousness idea remains central to primal theory, and the gating concept which originated with Melzac & Wall (see Holden's chapter refs in "Primal Man") has stood the test of time.

It occurred to me that visitors to the Wikipedia article may already be familiar with what Janov says in the books. Will the article have something to offer readers who want to know about Stettbacher's method, or the International Primal Association, or the plethora of copycat primal centers that flourished in the 1970s? -- Simon (81.174.212.167 03:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

Gate control theory of pain

I found a Wikipedia article on the history of the Gate control theory of pain which Arthur Janov adapted to explain the gating of psychological pain between the 3 levels of consciousness. -- Simon (81.174.211.203 05:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Techniques and abuses

The article is coming along nicely. I'm wondering if a brief mention of Stettbacher's method belongs in the Techniques and Abuses section. Alice Miller explained why she withdrew her support for Konrad J. Stettbacher in an article on the International Primal Association website: Communication To My Readers. -- Simon (81.174.208.44 11:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

Thanks, Simon - and thanks for that gating link and some of the other material that I have used. I just reread the Alice Miller statement and found again that it raises issues I don't yet know how to deal with in this article. I'm actually trying to write my way out of it as briefly and clearly as possible. -GrahameKing 07:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent Account of Primal Therapy Results

The Success and Failure of Primal Therapy (Thomas Videgard, 1983, ISBN9122006982) is the only independent account of the results of primal therapy. and following...

The above entry raises more questions than it answers:

How do you know it is the ONLY independent study?

How was Videgard's sample of 32 selected from the thousands who have been through the therapy?

Your use of the word "prognosis" looks completely wrong. Was this Videgard's word?

What does it mean to finish the therapy? - Janov has said himself that he doesn't believe that every last vestage of Pain can be resolved.

I don't have this book so I'll leave these questions here. -GrahameKing 00:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I edited this section based partly on a review of the book on the internet. The edited version answers some of the above questions. -GrahameKing 02:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not really 100% sure (I is an epistemological issue, you can not be sure about a negative), but 7 years ago I made an intense search of independent bibliography about Primal Therapy, and AFAIK this study is unique (or it was in 1999). If you prefer to delete the ONLY word, I will not oppose.

How was Videgard's sample of 32 selected from the thousands who have been through the therapy?

Videgard followed patients before, during and after therapy. Now, I let Videgard speak:

Two types of sampling were performed. About ten days before the start of a new group of patients, three to four subjects were randomly (underscored by Vidergard) chosen from a list prepared by the PI (page 91)

Concerning the three background variabls sex, age and nationality, the 25 randomly chosen subjects are acceptably representative of the total number of 101 patients who started treatment during the sampling period (Dec. 1975 to May 1976); see Table 1 (page 242)

Another interesting piece of information: The years when the therapy was made.

How representative this sample is of the larger population of all the patients that have gone through PT during the years is naturally difficult to infer, but there are no indications that is in any way exceptional (page 244)

Your use of the word "prognosis" looks completely wrong. Was this Videgard's word?

Yes, it was. Videgard used prominently this word even in the index: "The prognostic scale", "good prognosis", "medium prognosis"...

Moreover: Of these the prognosis (underscored by Videgard) is regarded as the most relevant outcome evaluation, since it is an estimation of the long term effects of PT" (page 244).

What does it mean to finish the therapy? - Janov has said himself that he doesn't believe that every last vestage of Pain can be resolved.

The following research plan was presented for the PI: Before PT..[]...After PT...[]...The time interval between the tests would be about two years irrespective of wether the patient was still in the therapy then or not (as explained earlier, it is almost impossible in most cases to decide when the therapy ends) Page 90

Please feel free to ask me questions about this book. I think it is a very important book for this page, and it is a rare book, published in Stockholm in a seemingly non-commercial format. I think that we should make all the necessary efforts to achieve a NPOV description of the key results of Videgard´s study.Randroide 08:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Spam" tag

I removed the "Spam" tag because I think that a link to the website of relevant people providing the therapy (and I am a critic of the therapy, see history) the article is about is NOT "spam". I am open to suggestions about this issue. Randroide 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I fully concur, and would have removed that tag myself if I had noticed it. Cgingold 12:23, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Double Ouch!!!

FROM THE MAIN TEXT: it should not be forgotten that Primal Therapy is, first and foremost, an experiential psychotherapy. In Arthur Janov's words: "Although there are scientific references and citations throughout this work...feelings are their own validation....Their feelings explain so much that statistical evidence is irrelevant".

*A 36 year old "experimental" psychoterapy. Thats a loooong experiment, indeed, and I wonder if prospective patients are warned about the "experimental" nature of the therapy. I think that this line must be referenced or deleted.

A purported scientist (Janov) who says that statistical evidence is irrelevant. Terrible, just terrible.

Freudian psychoanalysis, much derided and scorned by Janov, has been defended with the same kind of empty arguments: "...the profound insight gained by freudian psychoanalysis is his own validation... statistical evidence is irrelevant". "Arguments" used by Janov are a epistemological free-for-all.

Yes, you are right. I swear that I "saw" the missing "m".. well, my brain added that "m" to the quote (like in those Gestalt optical tricks), and I only saw my error when you pointed at it. Thank you, SweetP112. Randroide 20:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Janov at Paris and PubMed

Hi. I added a section about the Primal Institute at Paris. Any french contributor could take a look at French (specially parisian) newspapers in August 1985, because thre´s much more information about that issue (specially about the reasons for closing down in such a hurry the French operation), but it´s "on paper", not on the web.

As soon as I can, I will go to the library to check those articles and write a brief resume, althought maybe someone else could do that job sooner than me and in a more complete University Library. Randroide 13:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of potentially libellous material

After further reading of Wikipedia guidelines and consideration of this material on the Primal Institute at Paris, I have reverted to before the posting of the potentially libellous material - see:

Sorry, GrahameKing, but I think that your blanking[1] from this TalkPage of sourced data about Arthur Janov after a third party translation [2], after a two weeks discussion [3] and after you accepting a RfC [4] is unfair.

Restoration of discussion deleted by GrahameKing

Randroid - I reverted this section until you do your research. Some things don't add up and that Spanish so called Scientific Journal looks like little more than some kind of internet gossip sheet. Note that I also toned down the statement at the end of the Authentication section because that was pure assumption on my part.GrahameKing 19:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, GrahameKing.

The research was for the PubMed references, not for the Conocer block of text you blanked..

The "Conocer" source is hard-rock, nothing at all in common with an "internet gossip sheet" as you suggested. The director of Conocer was w:es:Manuel Toharia, a reputed Spanish scientist and scientific divulgator, and a very active fighter against Pseudoscience.

For instance, follow this googling. If you are not fluent in Spanish, I suggest you contact with a Spanish speaker (maybe an admin) to check my assertions. Once you have done it, plase move again the text to the main article, because, yes, it is sourced, and the source is bullet-proof.

Due to the fact that the text is blanked, I ask you with all due respect to do all that suggested fact-checking as soon as is reasonable for you, because that text belongs in the article.

Section removed

Section removed by GrahameKing. It is sourced but sensitive, so I think that a two weeks period for checking the source is reasonable time span. Randroide 20:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Primal Institute operations in New York and Paris

In the 1970s Janov opened a Primal Center (later closed) in New York City. Spurred by his second wife, Dr. France Janov [1], a French national, Arthur Janov decided to offer Primal Therapy in Paris, through an organization called the European Primal Institute (EPI).

The European operation started in 1982 and closed down in August 1985,

Randroid: Please stop editing my edits to make the impression you want. If we are going to have a discussion let it be in the form of sequential edits. What is your source for "Spurred by his second wife..."? All you have given is link to her biography section at Arthur Janov's site. You put all manner of references to Wikipedia rules on my talk page and then show no respect for the normal process of discussion yourself. GrahameKing 05:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Conocer, January 1986. As I said, all the section blanked by you was referenced by that Spanish reference.

Copy-pasted from my User Talk page:

Thanks for giving me all that time to check your sources. I should have been a little more careful in giving my reasons for reversion. It's something I don't often do. Actually I think the information about Arthur Janov's movements after he left The Primal Institute should go in the article on him. The only reason I put any reference to his marriages in the Primal Therapy article was for anyone wanting to check certification of therapists by him. I was naive about the date of his remarriage (see talk page on Arthur Janov article) - clearly what must have happened was that Vivian got the right to use his name on The Journal of Primal Therapy for five years as part of the divorce settlement. As for him starting a center in New York, I don't know about that - you give no sources for that. Without a reliable source, I don't see how this can be included.GrahameKing 22:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO all this data should stay in the article about Primal Therapy, due to the fact that all is about a former Primal Therapy operation in Europe.

The PubMed reference

There are 12 papers about Primal Therapy at PubMed. The bad thing is that on can not access to a PubMed search simply with an URL. Instead, one must type "Primal Therapy" into the PubMed search box in the PubMed home.

I think that those papers are important and should be linked.

An option (to the incovenience of the unpossibility of linking the search) could be to link the individual papers...

The New York center is referenced in Theresa Alexander Sheppard's Facing The Wolf:

As I became more experienced, I began to train and supervise trainee therapists in the [Primal Institute's] training program. Eventually I became the resident director of the Institute in New York City. In 1981 I left the Institute and developed a private practice in New York. (Introduction, p. xi)

I don't know if there are any online references though. WatchAndObserve 17:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Some great links

Randroid you have found some important links here in these pubmed papers - good work.

I still can not see how we can conclude that France Janov "spurred" Arthur Janov to start an institute in New York. Theresa Alexander Sheppard's statement has herself as director of that institute. There is a suggestion that it might have been like a Janov franchise, so to speak, but that is not clear from the quote you give of her. I may need all of that two weeks to check out your main source. GrahameKing 19:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, after more thought, I am inclined to agree with you about putting some of this material into the Primal Therapy article. But I think it might be best to work on it in a separate article at first (like "History of Primal Therapy" for example). Then a summary and a link to that could go in the Primal Therapy article. GrahameKing 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 20:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for your praise, GrahameKing. Just type "Primal therapy" at PubMed and you´ll find 12 papers, plus the Thomas Videgard study now we have some independent accounts about Primal Therapy. This is a good thing.

If you think that those articles (most of them from the 1970´s) are no longer relevant for what it is now the Primal Therary, History of the Primal Therapy could be an option.

I still can not see how we can conclude that France Janov "spurred" Arthur Janov to start an institute in New York.

I had no problem finding the 12 articles as you suggested - that's what I was praising you for. I don't mean to be patronising. Do you? I agree having these accounts is "a good thing". Therefore it seems to follow that we agree that you did good work.

I already asked for translation giving the reference and got a response saying they need a link to the article. Can you give me the title of the article to help me find it?GrahameKing 23:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

So far my reading of the part of the article you posted is as I said before. It looks like nothing more than snide unsubstantiated gossip. Also you're misquoting it because it says Janov's wife spurred him to open the institute in Paris not that she spurred him to open one in New York. GrahameKing 00:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 10:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC) It was never my intention to be patronise you, GrahameKing. Maybe I over-explained the procedure to gain access to the papers because I think that those papers are very important, and because I failed in my first attemp to link those papers (PubMed does not allow the URL pasting of searches). Maybe I did and explanatory "overkill".

I think that it is better to err on the side of the over-explanation. It is nothing personal: I also err on this side "on the real world", when I am working with a team. Believe me: It is safer to over-explain.

I know you were not patronising me. : )

There´s (AFAIK) no Internet link for the "Conocer" article. I typed the text from my 1986 paper copy of the publication.

The title of the article is "¡Gritad, y seréis curados!" (Shout!, and you will be cured!).

There is also (in some American "skeptic" publication) an article by Martin Gardner that should be mentioned. I will search that piece.

You wrote: It looks like nothing more than snide unsubstantiated gossip.

Sorry, sir: It is an article published in a scientific publication (the defunct publication Conocer, a kind of Spanish Discover) that mentions a lot of facts about the French Primal Therapy operation.

Under your own standards you introduced a lot of "unsubstantiated gossip" by Arthur Janov about his own therapy and about other therapies.

For instance this glorious -and, BTW, unsourced- line for the introduction: According to Primal Theory, psychological therapies which involve only talking about the problem (referred to as "Talking Therapies") are of limited effectiveness.

I do not call "unsubstantiated gossip" to the say-so of Janov about his own therapy (or about other therapies), so I ask you to please stop calling those names to the "Conocer" source. I repeat: It was not published in a Spanish Tabloid, it was published in a scientific publication, Conocer, directed by a prestigious Spanish Scientist: w:es:Manuel Toharia.

Moreover: The article does not practice "snide", but balanced criticism, because it also says good things about Primal Therapy, like this excerpt:

THANKS for that, Randroid. I had placed a reference at the bottom of the paragraph afer the quote. Since this did not clearly apply above, I have now repeated it after the statement in question.

Misquote

If we are going to continue this draining discussion let's take one thing at a time - to resolution.

Your strategy so far seems to be make some small concession and then raise a whole host of other issues.

You have not admitted to your misquote of the Conocer article (as reproduced, in part, by you) that I pointed out above. Let's deal with that to completion before going on to your other points above. We can then take your other points above one at a time without introducing more issues until the issues already raised have been resolved. I will only continue this discussion with you on these terms. GrahameKing 20:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

This "draining discussion" is focused upon improving the article with new facts and new sources. I see no "draining" at all.

I have not admitted any misquote because I misquoted nothing.

Janov opened another center in New York. But its profitability was not up to expectations. In 1982, partly for economic motives and partly as a result of pressure from his second wife, of French nationality, Janov opened the IPE in Paris (translation gentlyb provided by User:Seejyb).

Here is the source and here is the translation.

Do you have any additional problem with this piece of information?.

Can we move to another point?. If you prefer to discuss changes "one issue at a time" I have no problem.

Translation of quote, but should it be used at all?

Until last August, passers-by who were indiscreetly listening to sounds emanating from a quiet semi-detached house on the Avenue Marshal Foch in Paris, could frequently hear sobs, shouts of pain, and sometimes even real screams. Nevertheless, inside the house nobody was being tortured, at least not in the usual sense of the term, that is, unwillingly. In spite of being in the same place, the activities had nothing to do with the cellar having been used by the Gestapo more than 40 years earlier. []... The building was the headquarters of the European Primal Institute (IPE), founded and directed by the North American psychotherapist Arthur Janov. But now the headquarters in Paris have been closed

While this does describe one episode in the history of Primal therapy, I think it may be more appropriate in Janov’s biography, i.e. relating the course of his life work, since it does not tell us anything about the therapy as such. It does not say who worked there. From this excerpt, the dates of the New York enterprise are unclear. The article claims that Janov’s wife pressured him to start the Paris branch, but there is no reason to believe that it is authoritative, unless Conocer says where it got that normally highly personal information. Specific letters? Interviews? If we repeat it, we run the risk of carrying forward a journalistic speculation as fact. I would leave that speculation out altogether, otherwise say " The Spanish science magazine Conocer says ...."

Conocer was a Spanish popular science magazine. As noted by others, no web archive exists for the article that Randroide quoted, but the magazine was a respected one, and an appropriate reference. So I can see no reason why the whole section should be quoted, and even less why it should be in Spanish. Using untranslated Spanish in communicating differences is no better than if I were to give references in Xhosa and expect Randroide to find a translation somewhere. I believe that it is the responsibility of an editor to give all arguments on the English wikipedia in English – see Verifiability#Sources_in_languages_other_than_English --Seejyb 10:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide 11:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much for the translation, Seejyb. I did not translate the text myself because I preferred a neutral third party making the translation, but I must recognize that you have a point about the language issue.

Due to the fact that the text is not available online, the Spanish original should be preserved (hidden in the section).

If (both of) you prefer to move the facts to the page Arthur Janov, I am not going to make an issue of that. But I think that Primal Therapy would be the best location. But IMHO this is not a primordial issue.

The "The Spanish science magazine Conocer says ...." seems to be an excellent option. I would write "said" and italize Conocer, However.

The article claims that Janov’s wife pressured him to start the Paris branch, but there is no reason to believe that it is authoritative, unless Conocer says where it got that normally highly personal information

Is is authoritative, because Conocer is an authoritative source. Newspapers and Magazines do not feel usually the need to "source" their statements, because they are a source.

This argument of yours would lead us to an endless regression: Suppose that "Conocer" said "we knew about this because it was published by "Le Figaro". Well, then you could ask where "Le Figaro" got that highly personal information?. And so on.

Wikipedia is not about truth, but about verifiability. And it is verifiable that Conocer said this and that.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source.Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Thank you again for your translation job, Seejyb.Randroide 11:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been reading over this entire discussion, trying my best to get a good fix on exactly what it is we're dealing with - which is rather difficult, to say the least, since I don't have first-hand knowledge of the magazine Conocer, and further, because the passages that we're discussing are only a small part of the article. (It was quite interesting to read those excerpts, my thanks to Randroide and Seejyb.) Having said that, here's my take on it:

Conocer may indeed have been a respected publication in terms of science journalism; however, if it was comparable to Discover, it probably didn't undertake the sort of investigative journalism that would have been necessary to ascertain with any degree of certainty what sorts of financial or personal (i.e. "fatigue") considerations may or may not have been involved in the establishment and subsequent closure of the New York and Paris Primal Institutes. That sort of investigation would probably have required the resources and expertise of a publication like the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times, the Guardian, the New York Times, etc.

Since these issues were addressed only in very cursory terms in the Conocer article, with no indication that they had been the subject of a serious investigation, I really do not see how any of those assertions can be considered "authoritative" for the purposes of WP:Verifiability. Moreover, since there is no full-blown discussion of these issues in the WP article, presenting a variety of views on the subject, it would be highly POV, as well, to quote or paraphrase those passages from the Conocer article. And lastly, there is the issue of including derogatory/defamatory info on a living person -- a serious concern, I would say.

Perhaps at some point somebody will take the inititative to put together a section (or a separate article) on the history of the Primal Institutes, if that's even feasible in terms of source materials. But for now, I think this article should stay focused on the therapy itself: how it was developed, how it's practiced, what actually happens during therapy, how well it serves the needs of patients/clients, etc., etc. To the extent that the Conocer piece sheds light on any of those questions, it could be of value to the article. Perhaps Randroide can find the time to make other parts of the article available for translation? Cgingold 13:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful and thoughtful analysis, Cgingold. I can not find even one tiny point to disagree with.

For Randroid, I want to set the record straight on a few things. My error in reading you as misquoting the Conocer article was, I think, something like yours with "experiential". In this case I seem to have read a period as a comma and a comma as a period. You accused me of blanking the article when in fact I reverted it to the point before your additions (a big difference) and I placed the section, you had worked on, here on the discussion page. You then edited in some intervening material which made it look like you had been the one to post the missing section (I don't know what your intention was and it doesn't matter to me now). I understand it must have been upsetting to have your work reverted and I didn't mean to discard any of your work including the PubMed references. I hope that we can work together more harmoniously in future if necessary. GrahameKing 02:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Randroide answers

GrahameKing wrote: My error in reading you as misquoting the Conocer article was, I think, something like yours with "experiential".

Errare humanum est. Move on.

GrahameKing wrote: You accused me of blanking the article when in fact I reverted it to the point before your additions (a big difference)...[]...You then edited in some intervening material which made it look like you had been the one to post the missing section (I don't know what your intention was and it doesn't matter to me now).

I agree with you: I think it is more constructive to drop the subject. It´s unimportant and we have better things to talk about.

GrahameKing wrote: I hope that we can work together more harmoniously in future if necessary

I hope that too : )

Cgingold wrote: ...however, if it was comparable to Discover, it probably didn't undertake the sort of investigative journalism that would have been necessary to ascertain with any degree of certainty what sorts of financial or personal (i.e. "fatigue") considerations may or may not have been involved in the establishment and subsequent closure of the New York and Paris Primal Institutes

Key word: Probably. And that´s your personal opinion.

The fact is that a reputed source (with all the checks and guards that a reputable source should have) published some factual statements about the Primal operation in Paris.

Let the reader decide about the credibility of the source, because there´s a source. Not The New York Times indeed, but there´s a source.

Moreover: The alleged "physical and mental exhaustion" of Janov is documented by verbatim excerpts from the letter that Janov wrote to the patients whose therapy was cutted withou warning ("I cannot live any more in the midst of pain and the misery...").

Cgingold wrote: I really do not see how any of those assertions can be considered "authoritative" for the purposes of WP:Verifiability.

I will tell you: It is verifiable fact that this Spanish magazine of this genre published this and this remarks about the French Primal operation.

Cgingold wrote:Moreover, since there is no full-blown discussion of these issues in the WP article, presenting a variety of views on the subject, it would be highly POV

I suggest you to add "the other side" views. I am not going to oppose the inclusion of sourced NPOV statements.

Cgingold wrote: And lastly, there is the issue of including derogatory/defamatory info on a living person'-- a serious concern, I would say.'

Please, do not misuse words:

defamationis the communication of a statement that makes a false claim

Tha claim "Conocer" said this and that is not false. Is as true and real as the 21 yo "Conocer" magazine I have on my desk.

On the other hand, the application of the standards you propose, would lead to the deletion of this line at the beginning of the article:

According to Primal Theory, psychological therapies which involve only talking about the problem (referred to as "Talking Therapies") are of limited effectiveness

Because, you know?, this line could be considered as derogatory/defamatory.

Uh, and the psychologists who do not practice (remember, "limited effectiveness") Primal Therapy are also living persons.

There´s of course no such a problem, because those are not our words, instead, that´s what Janov says about non-Janovian psychologists.

The Conocer issue is just the same: Those are not our words, that´s what Conocer said about Janov.

If there is any reason for Janov having carte blanche to say whatever he wants about other non-Janovian therapists but not the other way around (other guys critizing Janov), please let me know that reason.

Dear Randroide, In my work here on Wikipedia I've maintained a serious commitment to working constructively and collaboratively with other editors -- and not just with those I find myself in agreement with. I truly don't wish to be offensive, but in all sincerity, I simply can't expend the excessive amount of time that would be required to disentangle all of the non-sensical details of your response to my comments above. (I suspect that the language gap may be compounding the inherent complexities in the issues we're debating.)

As I tried to make clear above, there is a serious difference between science journalism and investigative journalism -- and there is no indication in the material you've provided that Conocer used "all the checks and guards that a reputable source should have" to credibly establish the article's assertions regarding the creation and closure of the Primal Institute in Paris.

At the very least, my clear impression is that you either haven't read, or possibly don't understand, the WP policies that are spelled out re living persons. (Please be sure to read that page all the way through.) Like it or not, we just can't post derogatory material about individuals that has such flimsy sourcing. I think your zeal to include such material re Janov is clouding your judgement.

My third opinion: There is no WP:BLP problem here, because these things are sourced. We do not know precisely how Conocer aquired information, but it is an editorially-reviewed source. It should be made very clear that Conocer said this, and I really think the "Gestapo" bit adds nothing but atmospheric hyperbole that should be edited out with ellipses, but beyond that, it's fine. Asserting that Conocer is equivalent to Discover in the text of the article would also be original research and impermissible. — coelacantalk — 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Steven Rose

New text in the article: For example, in a one-page account of his research with Arthur Janov, Professor Steven Rose wrote in Lifelines

I can not found that study at PubMed. This is a common problem if "Steven Rose" used a slightly different name (for instance "Steven A. Rose" or "Robert S. Rose").

Could you please provide the complete name of "Steven Rose" and the complete title of the article?. Randroide 08:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It is not anything from PubMed - it is a book - see the reference in the article. -- GrahameKing 17:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is called in a scientific context "Research" is usually published in peer-reviewed journals. The author, after that initial publication, may choose to review or comment (or even retract) his/her own previously published data in a "divulgative" book. Is that the case of the Steven Rose "research"?. Please, check it.

If that´s not the case, a note should be added. Something like this:

For example, in a one-page account of his research (unpublished in peer review journals) with Arthur Janov, Professor Steven Rose wrote in Lifelines...

Could you please provide the complete name of Steven Rose and if he has any publication in peer-reviewed journals?. Thank you.

This is very strange, GrahameKing, because scientific papers are NOT "one-page". I want to read the complete original paper.

You have still unanswered questions above, unless you prefer to go to a WP:RFC right now. CU, GrahameKing. Randroide 17:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Randroid. I am tired. At the moment I only know about the book. I will make the Steven Rose reference clearer. -- GrahameKing 18:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the unanswered questions I'm having a problem finding them. I hope you can find them and repeat them for me if they have not been resolved in your mind (you choose the order - but I would prefer one at a time). -- GrahameKing 06:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put in a request for help at the reference desk to find Steven Rose's publications curricula. I found a web page that has just 2000-2006 and could not find the earlier work. In any case the quotes I gave were fed to me be someone who could be anyone (no proper user name) so I really had no business posting those quotes. For that reason I have removed the Steven Rose material. Maybe something useful by him will be turned up later.

I changed the section heading to a more general one that would cover all the reports including the Janov paper you found rather than trying to determine which are "independent" studies and which are not. These days, particularly in the fields of psychology and sociology the ideal study is a double blind study because this virtually ensures there can be no "cooking" of results and the independence of the report is then of little concern. -- GrahameKing 09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

IMO you did the right thing with this "Steven Rose" issue. Thank you, Grahame King. Randroide 09:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not see the attribution of the above quote to Arthur Janov (from the Conocer piece) as being defamatory in the common sense (I am not proposing that Wikipedia should adopt this view - it is my POV): if this quote was actually put in writing to Janov's patients then it shows a therapist being honest and direct with his patients - a rare and valuable example for everyone, Janov's patients included, of "being real" (Janov's term) in difficult circumstances (subject only to the second point below).

But from a broader perspective and in a legal sense, and even according to "common sense", the attribution of the above quote to Arthur Janov might well qualify as defamatory because in our "unreal" world (to use Janov's terms again) it could have substantial adverse effects on his reputation etcetera. It is for more experienced Wikipedians than myself to determine this. If it is considered defamatory in the legal sense then there are many Wikipedia guidelines that would seem to prevent it from being included in an article. Even positive statements about a living person (true or false) must be properly sourced and in the case of defamatory statements this usually requires multiple corroborative sources.

If, as Arthur Janov has written in his books, it takes years to master the complex task of being a Primal Therapist, how could Conocer have been an authority on this? It is entirely possible that Janov struggled on to reach a point where he believed that all of his current patients could manage without him before announcing the closure. Also (and this is a very important point) without the complete text of the alleged letter, we have no idea how long the EPI remained open after the alleged letter was received.

You now have two views against you. It is for you to decide what is next. -- grokking 04:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By two views against you I obviously mean two views opposed to yours. I am slowly learning the Wikipedia vocabulary.

You consistently fail to understand the difference between an ad hominem attack and a critique of an individual's theoretical views. I'm beginning to agree with Cgingold's view that it is not worth the time to untangle your words because it seems to be like water of a duck's back.

In cutting up my reply into lines and critiquing each line you are doing what you did with the Conocer article - taking what you can use to your own ends and distorting it by removing it from its context to meet those ends. Just as you did when you edited my initial posting of the reverted material, which I had placed on this page to preserve it for discussion, making it appear that you had placed it here.

Until last August, passers-by who were indiscreetly listening to sounds emanating from a quiet semi-detached house on the Avenue Marshal Foch in Paris, could frequently hear sobs, shouts of pain, and sometimes even real screams. Nevertheless, inside the house nobody was being tortured, at least not in the usual sense of the term, that is, unwillingly. In spite of being in the same place, the activities had nothing to do with the cellar having been used by the Gestapo more than 40 years earlier. []... The building was the headquarters of the European Primal Institute (IPE), founded and directed by the North American psychotherapist Arthur Janov.

"Libel" allegations are baseless: If it is sourced it is not libellious.

Likewise, the article already presents alegations made by Arthur Janov about talking therapies being of limited effectiveness. Those alegations are neither libelious against talking therapists: Janov said that, not Wikipedia.

And the next time I justified the removal this way

No more assumption of good faith

The terms of my proposal on my talk page were clear and liberal and left open all means of lower level dispute resolution processes including a possible RfC referring to the reverted content on this page.

You have subverted the most used tool on Wikipedia for dispute resolution by loading it with a personal attack of the lowest order against an 82 year old man who is trying in his own way to teach us to have respect for each other. No more warnings. I do not know if the subversion of an important Wikipedia tool was what you intended by posting that RfC but from my POV that is the effect. I think that Ayn Rand, whom I respect to this day, was a great believer in discussion and so, I think, is Arthur Janov. Randroid, I apologise if my previous post under this heading appeared in itself to be a personal attack, I meant only to describe the effect from my POV.

Reply- Even if the so-called RfC was correctly made and registered (which it was not) there would be no compulsion for me to respond to it. Because it was it unregistered, it could not possibly elicit any comments from anyone who was not actively watching this talk page and therefore in a postion to comment anyway if they were so inclined.

Any way, there is no longer any need for resolution of this particular dispute since I removed the potentially libellous content (with surgeon-like precision), reported to Administration what you had done and notified Arthur Janov by mail of his rights (of editing Wikipedia) and methods by which he could edit Wikipedia pages to remove or correct any defamatory material coming up on Google searches in future.

Second I did not reject mediation - I don't think it is appropriate here as there have been a number of opinions from others which you have consistently ignored along with mine partly by using your dog's breakfast style of posting in places removed from the original post you are replying to. This behaviour of yours is unacceptable.

Questionable subsection removed from article

The following subsection, introduced by User:Randroide, has required a lot of work by myself and other editors, and in the end it is very doubtful that it should have been included at all. It describes a study that came to a mildly positive conclusion about Primal Therapy. It was published in an obscure inaccessible book rather than a peer-reviewed journal (which the study was initially clearly aimed at). There is no indication that it was an independent study as it was conducted by a patient at the Primal Institute with cooperation from the staff.

Of course that the book is "obscure", GrahameKing: The book is about a "obscure" therapy: A 37 years old therapy offered only in two centers in California. What do you expect?. A New York Times Bestseller?.

A line at the cover of the book:

32 patients Treated at the Primal Institute (Janov)

A paragraph from page 1:

Dr. Janov thereby granted me access to the patients awaiting therapy. I am grateful to him and to M.D. Michael Holden, then Research Director at the Primal Institute for allowing me, then a patient, the freedom to pursue this research on my own lines

This book is the nearest thing on earth to an independent account of Janov-approved Primal Therapy. Sorry but if you delete this stuff I will be forced to deal with that deletion as simple vandalism.

This behaviour of yours is unacceptable, GrahameKing. Please stop it, because I know you can make good contributions to the article.

If you are worried about the "Conocer" article, please go ahead ASAP with the mediation process. If the "Conocer" text is declared "defamatory" (I doubt it, but who knows), the text will be deleted and that´s it.

Tomas Videgård´s The Success and Failure of Primal Therapy

In an early account of the results of primal therapy (published in book form, only in Sweden in English), Tomas Videgård[2] reported on a study of a sample of 32 patients treated at The Primal Institute (Janov). Patients entered therapy from December 1975 to May 1976.

Outcome evaluation for the patients:

4 Very Good

9 Good

8 Medium

6 Bad (including one suicide)

5 Unavailable for post-testing

Patients who did not "finish" the therapy were excluded. Patients in the sample had been in therapy for between 15 and 32 months. Janov now claims that the formal therapy can take significantly longer than this and has never put a time limit on the therapy process overall as it depends on how much Pain the individual has to resolve.

Videgård himself went through the therapy. It should also be noted that the evaluation was based on patients' answers to questions and some projective tests that require interpretation by the tester. Videgård concluded that therapy at the Primal Institute was marginally better than the Tavistock clinic and markedly better than the Menninger Foundation - the two psychotherapy clinics which he used for comparison.

Where to buy

Where exactly can you buy this book? I can't find any places that sell the book:

The source is credible enough - a respected journalist who had an inside contact in the cult - but this is extreme stuff and I haven't had the time to get the corroborative credible sources to back it up. Maybe it can be put back then. -- GrahameKing 07:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I restored the section you deleted.

The cult history is also mentioned in "Crazy Therapies", I added the reference.Randroide 10:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Janov´s claims: Where´s the beef?

In the last 30 years Primal Therapy has established itself as the only therapy producing deep changes in a host of psychosomatic symptoms and psychological problems. As Director and Supervisor of Research with the Primal Foundation Laboratory, Dr. Janov was the first psychologist to submit his results to scientific scrutiny. Studies at Rutgers, the University of Copenhagen, St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in England and the University of California at Los Angeles have all supported his theory that Primal Therapy can produce measurable positive effects on the function of the human brain and body.[15]

Ehrrr...where are those studies?.

What the h**l means Dr. Janov was the first psychologist to submit his results to scientific scrutiny?.

Hoffman, Erik. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RIGHT CEREBRAL HEMISPHERE ION HYPEREMOTIONAL ACTIVITY AS MEASURED BY QUANTITATIVE EEG: Third World Congress of Biological Psychiatry, Stockholm, Sweden. June 28-July 3, 1981.

Gardiner, M. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EEGs RECORDED FROM INDIVIDUALS AT DIFFERENT TIME POINTS DURING A PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT. Conference on Human Brain Function, B19 report, 42, 1976 pp. 86-102.

On the same page, it gives the following affiliations: Rutgers University (L. Goldstein), University of Copenhagen (E. Hoffman), The Brain Research Institute of UCLA (M. Gardiner).

Thank you very much, WatchAndObserve. It´s a pleasure to have such a well documented person at the other side of the line.Randroide 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"one-eyed witch-doctor"

I have, once again, removed the line from the Sidenote re John Lennon about "the one-eyed witch-doctor leading the blind" as a supposed reference to Janov. While I would agree that it is a plausible claim, surely it must be clear that we need some sort of confirmation and sourcing for this claim. I just finished another round of internet searches, but there was nothing that came close to meeting that objective. The most I could find is the lyrics to the song, "Nobody Loves You (When You're Down and Out)" from the 1974 album, Walls and Bridges, which is the source of the "one-eyed witch-doctor" quote. But there is absolutely nothing to suggest that it refers specifically to Janov; it's just as plausible that the line refers to, for instance, the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, or perhaps to both, or perhaps to someone else, or .... who knows?? Cgingold 05:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)